Talk:Michael Roach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Maintaining NPOV

It appears that there are some fundamental issues between traditional Buddishism and Michael Roach's teachings/lifestyle/claims. I suggest that a summary be worked out on this talk page, with appropriate references. Do not include rumors/unverifiable allegations; nor quotes from open letters, etc. An appropriate review before posting — to be careful to adhere to WP:BLP — is a good idea. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is the section I suggested above New Ways after a Three-Year-Retreat based on self-published sources (the three PDF files with the public announcements): I could verify the sources as been published by Geshe Michel Roache's organisation, and published at his internetsites which are used also for reference in the article now. But the sources are not accepted by some WP's. So this seems to be investigated by other WP:Admins/Editors as well. I have not the ability to understand all the rules related to that case clearly. (Please exuse my stubbornness and just ignore me if needed.) I leave it to you the experienced Admins and editors to refute or accept the sources. If the letters are not accepted at the moment there are no other sources (besides the biased critical site).

The Wikipedia:reliable source states on that:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:

• relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
• not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.

it should also be:

• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• subject to verification by other sources.

Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.

So I see no real contradiction about my sources from GMR's site as being used as "Self-published sources", isn't it? --Kt66 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with them as sources—except that they are no longer on the web-sites in question—but I still don't know what they are supposed to mean.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also the problem with interpretation of sources. As an encyclopedia, WP must report on interpretations originating in other sources. We as Wikipedia editors must not interpret them ourselves, that would be original research. So, if the texts have multiple possible meanings or readings, ambiguities, etc., we must find a secondary source that interprets and discusses those meanings. Ekajati 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The principals in these sources are being circumspect, and it's not clear from reading the removed text what message we are supposed to be getting. In the absence of some source to explain it, I don't see the point of its inclusion.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it currently stands is that there is not a mention of the contraversy at all. And its a significant contraversy, dragged around till infinity on few large buddhist internet forums, surely that much is an acceptible assesment to all sides of the discussion? Some mention must be included otherwise how can this be called NPOV? Diamond cutter site seems the most obvious choice of refference, why consider it any less appropriate than GMRs sites themselves? As a primary, not secondary source, of course, simply to note that there is a contraversy, theres no need to affirm them as objective, unbiasted etc..Ill check back this discussion and if a dialogue on this remains as stagnant, Ill add the link anyways..--83.131.151.15 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But we have different opinions here. Whereas user:ekajati and user:HanumanDas argued against the inclusion of this link, users:Sacca and me wished to include it. User:NatKrause appeared open to include it. He sopke not aginst including it rather he opposed the reasons of user:HumanumDas for excluding it. Until now we follow the views of user:ekajati and user:HanumanDas, maybe you have to discuss with them and learn the WP:rules to discuss this point of including/excluding the link on a deeper level. I fail that qualifications. Regards --Kt66 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont find it acceptible to use WP:RS as argument for exclusion, because there is no such thing in existance as secondary source on this matter to judge reliability of these sources, and primary sources will be inherently biased in this case due to its contraversial nature. If such a criteria is applied, then the entire article needs to be deleted. On the other hand significant elements of the contraversy, like the letter from the private office of HHDL are indeed verifiable, and uncontraversial in existance and content (supposedly could be in interpretation) and must be mentioned regardless of the inclusion of that particular site, so to bring the entire discussion on the contraversy down to the question of the inclusion of a link is itself too simplistic an. Its only easier to have a compilation of the other side of the contraversy on one place, and the contraversy itself is pretty widespread, like that site, without judging their merit. Also its totally not true that the fact the site in question does not sign the names of all participants (especially given the cultish nature of some allegations) that this apriori discredits it as a source - the policy that was misquoted here was first discussing external links, not reliable sources, and this need not be the case of using them as external links - as that policy says. "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article." - so if you say, go to the page on Beaufort scale, youll see at the bottom linked a few good sites that expand on the information given in the article but are nonessential for its content because the source of information for the text of the article itself is rather a book named under the refferences. Clearly this is not the role diamond cutter site should have for this article. Also the policy simply says 'normally avoided', nothing more, which is logical given the nonessential nature of those links otherwise it would lead to the proliferation of that section of some articles into a web directory on the topic. This rule would imo more likely imply on cutting some of the nonessential links to his organisations, that are crosslinked on one site anyways. Otoh, biographies indeed need to be treated carefully, however gurus also need to be treated with extra scrutiny. Also without question the self published information should not be treated as true but only as a POV of the author, no sane person would suggest any differently. Open letters of verified and verifiable authenticity otoh could be refferenced without issue.

Rather whats of more importance here is the use of that site as a primary source of information, and it being linked under references, where it perfectly qualifies, and used as such for simple noncontraversial information like claims of realisation, those few letters from other lamas on his claims of realisation, and from HH Dalai Lama his possibility of attendance, the letter about taking down of his talks from LamRim Radio, christianization of teachings (like the videotapes of such a service), the pretty blatant fact that hes a monk openly in a relationship with a woman and claiming tantric+realisation justification for this etc, that are accepted as true from all parties anyways, only interpreted differently. Well, theres no need to interpret anything on an encyclopedia, so it should be easy to avoid problems..

Furthermore I find it unacceptible that given a situation where theres no consensus, the article stands in a clearly NPOV position, with no mark about any dispute etc, and with the position of one group of editors only taken into account in that version. Also I see no attempt to actually improve or give a different or indeed any kind of presentation of the substantial points of contraversy, but just an argument about a particular link essentially tangental to the core issue here. I seek for no particular confrontations, but will surely insist on a NPOV mark on the article as long as something about the contraversy is not stated, and will edit in some attempted versions of the article soon, after getting hopefully a bit more feel for the positions and concerns of other editors. --Aryah 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not taken into account the restriction placed by the rules about biographies of living people. No self-published sources of any kind can be used as sources. It is my firm belief that because WP:BLP insists that we err on the side of caution in respect to biographies of living people, that there should be no linking whatsover to sites which would not qualify as sources.

Please don't take me for a supporter of the subject. I am not and have never been a student of Michael Roach. I understand the nature of the complaints about him, but unless these are given voice in a newspaper, magazine, or book which can be cited, or the website of a real organization which is a registered corporation, profit or non-profit, where the names the CEO, board of directors, etc. are known, this material does not belong in Wikipedia, nor should it be linked to from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory.

Even from the point of view of a paper encyclopedia staff doing research, the controversy does not exist unless it can be documented from reliable source. That said, months have gone by an no critic of Roach has been able to provide sources that meet WP standards. In such a case, I do not believe it correct to put an NPOV tag on the article, and I will remove it.

If you can provide material that meets WP standards, I, at least, would be happy to include it. I am not trying to protect Roach but rather extend the protection that WP policies were designed to afford to living persons to him. He has as much right to this protection as anyone else. —Hanuman Das 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand the concern for preserving wikipedia standards of protecting individual persons from encyclopedic defamation. As I see, the material themselves, the videos on the google video, and the three letters can be mentioned without problem. The problem is AFAIK they are not published so much as circulating. Many people wrote emails to the stated authors to confirm their valitidy and got positive answers But I dont know if they are actually published in some quotable form besides that site. And furthermore Michael Roach also admits their validity and this is stated on his sites too, so though invisibe as a wiki source its paradoxsically verifiably true and furthermore consensually taken as such, thats really a crazy situation, IMO! I mean its not dificult; any editor in doubt can check by email, and if still claims he got the response they are invalid, an admin can check by email too, and then punish the editor for the lie (in that eventual scenario) on some severe and on a by that editor previously agreed upon way. Alternatively, maybe googling up the letters in questions for other sources? Simply there are quite sufficient, reliable and consensually agreed informations about the existance of the contraversy, Its insufficient a reason that the technicality, if even correctly interpreted, that if a particular site presenting it should not be linked, the whole issue should go unmentioned. --Aryah 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, they can't be mentioned unless they've been written about by a third-party, mentioned in a newspaper, journal, magazine or book, or published on a reputable website. For example, if the Dalai Lama letter is published on the Govt of Tibet website, it could be mentioned and quoted from, as long as a citation is provided that links to the letter on the site, or alternatively, if it were published in a book or journal, that book or journal could be cited, preferably with page numbers, etc. The point here is that things like email, blogs, mailing lists, , personal websites, etc. cannot be used. Neither can "self-published" information except in exceptional circumstances. For example, if the Dalai Lama had a verifiable personal website and published the letter, it could still be used as he is an extremely notable individual. However, if I put the same letter on my website, it could not be used if that were the only copy, as there would be no way to verify that I hadn't made it up out of whole cloth.Hope this helps... —Hanuman Das 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, the letter of the lamrim radio administrator about taking down of GMRs lectures and the reasons that happened would be permissable if it was published on the lamrim.com itself, as long as a citation os provided that links to the letter on the site? This would be the equivalent of a newspaper editor publishing such a letter in an issue? --Aryah 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This: http://www.lamrim.com/dmtn/openletter.html --Aryah 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because it is self-published; it's published by the owner of the site on his own site: that's self-published. If they were publishing somebody else's letter such as the Dalai Lama's letter, it would be fine (provided that the Dalai Lama had given permission to publish the letter, of course, since he is the copyright holder and WP cannot link to material posted in violation of coryright).

Now, if Roy's letter were published on a site that he didn't own, there would still be the question of whether Roy is a notable person. The opinions of notable people are of interest. My own, for example, would not be, as I am not notable, nor am I a recognized writer or reporter or someone who has established a track record of reliability in my communications.

Buy such a definition no editorials would ever be a permissable source of information. cnn.com is also self published, right? But, note that diamond-cutter did just that - published somebody else's letter. And also in your previous example with hypothetical Dalai Lamas letter on his site would also be a self published information by this criteria, and you previously claimed it could then be quoted. And is there any information taken from michael roaches sites thats not self published? If his sites can be used as a primary source on him (and numerous articles do this), or if his books can be used as a source, then simply finding mention of that information on his site will be enought for it to be included? Can I search other biographies of varios persons and will you agree that if information they published in their books or in their sites is used in many of them, then that similar criteria can be used here? The only thing Id be interested in pulling out of that letter is the fact those lectures were taken down from the site called such and such because admin of it had misgivings over the contraversy developing around the issue of etc... GMRs own site has letters about this too. Is this a 'self published' information and unadmissable too? So, youve got his site saying something, youve got an anti-site agreeing with it and youve got an unrelated site also agreeing and no mention of this fact at all is to be made? So, in your gutenberg-centric vision of sourcing, pretty much no internet information could ever be used at all. untill the printing press rolls over that information its useless. This is a ridiculous definition of 'self published' --Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What about this then:

Using the subject as a source

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. * It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

So, certainly, mentiones of the contravery on sites by Michael Roach can be used extensively in this article? Wheres the issue with Kt66s use web archive of self publication of the subject about the contraversy? Also what about this public recording of Michael Roach himself on a pretty reputable source - http://www.archive.org/details/Star_in_the_East_8Mins - so he can be quoted saying that mahayana evolved due to the influence of thomasine christians and that everything that the bible says is literally true and can this be called a highly contraversial assesment or should we ignore a few millenia of buddhist history too? --Aryah 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that you have misinterpreted Roy's letter. It doesn't say that he has taken down GMR's teachings. In fact, it say he has left them up! He says he has simply made them harder to find and get to by not linking to them from the main page. That's one of the reasons primary sources like letters are rarely used. People are always trying to spin them to make them mean what they want. —Hanuman Das 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Im avare of this, and said it only in simplification. Thats because Ive followed the e-sangha forum discussion about that letter, and the letter was taken down completely, and put back on the site for refference when we inquired to the administrator about its authenticity, for refference, not because its claim that the lectures were still online but taken off of the main page was still true. Google doesnt find them anywhere on that site anymore and the lamrim.com links as stated on Michael Roaches site (and the links that used to work that were discussed on e-sangha) dont work any longer so they have clerely been removed completely in the meantime, but in any case 'removed from the homepage' is good enough for the point - making a mention of any kind... --Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that there is no "about this site" information that I can find. It doesn't say who owns it, nowhere can I find Roy's last name. The domain registration itself is anonymous, through DomainsByProxy. Looks like a personal project by a single individual without that kind of information. I'm sure it's a great resource, but it doesn't look like a reliable source for a letter by its own owner to which he doesn't sign his last name. —Hanuman Das 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen in highly recommended on e-sangha quite a few times, by moderators of that site... It is linked from http://www.lamayeshe.com/general/links.shtml and lama yeshe is prety notable, to say the least, from http://www.dalailamafoundation.org/members/en/xivVideo.jsp and this is an organization mentioned on http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/news21.php and http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2005/7/8_6.html (both as notable as a tibetan buddhist site can ever hope to be) and many other sites of buddhist temples (like http://www.gandendheling.org/links.html , http://www.shedrupling.at/KC/deu/deu_reso/links.html , http://www.samantabhadra.org/links/links.html) as a good resourse. So I definitely insist that that resource is as notable as some newspaper might be, and that the open letter can be treated however one would treat a letter of an editor published in a newspaper. Essentially if this site cannot pas the bar of notability, then theres barely any site online about tibetan buddhism that could. Isnt it high time to remove links to Michael Roaches sites then?--Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

With all this endless discussion on what is a reliable source or not, in practice, it should still be possible without being a Wiki-lawyer to mention that there is a controversy? I think that everybody here can by now knows that there is something going on. I think people should be informed about controversial teachers, in in my POV this is more important content then his date of birth... rudy 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, and No. Links to Roach's site are specificly allowed by policy. You can't even mention the controversy until it has been mentioned in real media. You are pushing the river. If there really is a controversy, you just have to wait until it gets real media coverage of some sort. The open letter simply cannot be used: the author didn't even have the guts to sign his full name. The site has no information about who publishes it, and even the domain registration is anonymous. No. I must say that everyone publishing this information seems to be pretty gutless.

I've added some examples of media coverage that is acceptable. Identifiable authorship (first and last name), a known publisher (such as a yoga center that publishes who they are, where they can be found and phone number on their website. That's what you are looking for. I didn't find anything about any controversy on any acceptible site. That tells me that people are afraid of legal action in response. That sort of legal action could also be taken agaist Wikipedia, another thing that WP:BLP is intended to prevent. —Hanuman Das 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the person in question is:

           Lam Rim Radio

           c/o Roy Harvey

           2603 Chanute Trail

           Maitland, FL  32751-4012

           USA

That information is available all over their mailing list, and on about 60 other places available by google, including sites of various buddhist centres. They also say they are ``world's oldest and largest Tibetan Buddhist Internet Radio Station broadcasting around the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.`` which would be quite a notable title, no?. They also have a TV program at lamrim.tv and they opened that service with a broadcast Venerable Kirti Tsenrab Rinpoche (lineage holder of the kalachakra tantra) allowed of kalachakra initiation ceremony by that channel. Theyve broadcasted HH Dalai Lamas teachings in the meantime.. Im sure the open letter is not signed because its adressed to a person familiar with that widely available piece of information.. I find the claim that this site is an unacceptible source absolutely unacceptible itself. Youve not discussed the issues of 'self published' sources and the various changes of positions and absurd conclusions? --83.131.157.49 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heres some more detailed info on the site: Some guys are into cars, others are into golf or fishing, still others like to spend their free time building high-powered trebuchets to see just how far they can toss a pumpkin.[1] Outside of waterslide parks and camping with the family, I like to see how far and wide I can stream packets to listeners throughout the world for little or no money down. In a small corner of my basement lives the network operations center for the Internet’s first and currently largest “Tibetan Buddhist” Internet radio station. The lectures are usually on various philosophical topics and typically run 1 to 2 hours in length. When I'm not providing a live broadcast, "The Station" server streams various MP3 files from its local hard disk. I started doing this casually back in late 1999, but things got serious a short time later when I provided audio streaming services for the 14th Dalai Lama’s lectures at Shoreline Amphitheater here in Silicon Valley.

From a networking perspective, my connectivity consists of a megabit SDSL 

(1.1Mbps up / 1.1Mbps down) from Speakeasy ­ a very progressive and scrappy ISP that’s deservedly become the nation’s largest independent broadband provider. I pay a couple hundred dollars a month for unlimited bi-directional transfers and half a dozen static IP addresses. Should I need a little more bandwidth for a special event, a simple phone call and their provisioning system makes it happen almost at once. Overall network stability, availability, and throughput has been rock-solid. Speakeasy also includes unlimited nationwide dial-up service; you'll see later why this is important.

My servers are all Intel-based, either donated or so low cost as to be free. For instance, last year I bought 3 1-rack unit 750Mhz servers from a failed dot.com liquidation for $125 each. Sold one online for $500, thus paying for the other two plus profit. My primary webcasting box is a dual 500Mhz 3U that a listener gave to me. ........... So this supposedly very obscure site that has no info on it actually has easily trackable details about the server configurations and is part of the logicstis of the lectures that HH Dalai Lama held in Silicon Valley. And that obscure administrator also is mentioned on acknowledgement page of http://www.dalailamafoundation.org/members/en/thanks.jsp - seems he provided hosting services for them... --83.131.157.49 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) What about this - http://www.lamayeshe.com/talktous/newsletter/e-letter9-04.shtml :

I hope you are well. We just returned from His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s wonderful teachings in Florida. His Holiness taught on Padmasambhava’s Garland of Views. If you’d like to hear these teachings, please visit Lam Rim Radio. If you’re not familiar with Lam Rim Radio, this will introduce you to it. Run by Roy Harvey, it contains a wealth of excellent teachings.

So the site is recommended the influential FPMT organization, and demonstrates again how non-secret and openly stated the full name of its administrator is. Still think an open letter about exclusion of GMRs materials from such a site by that sites administrator is not notible enough? Is there anything to justify this besides a fetish for gutenberg? --83.131.157.49 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC) here another noted site linking it and another clear statement of his full name - http://kalachakranet.org/ikn_news.html --83.131.157.49 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still self-published - written by the OWNER of the SITE and PUBLISHED ON HIS OW?N SITE. Don't you get it? Regardless of how reputable the site is, self-published primary sources aren't permitted. Now I'm done with this ridiculous discussion. Your comments are way too long and are simply complex arguments intended to get around WP:BLP. Wait till a neutral thrid-party source covers the story. Isn't patience a virtue in Buddhism? —Hanuman Das 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hanuman Das. So far, there are no sources which meet Wikipedia standards. I also agree with him that sooner or later the story will be picked up by a newpaper or magazine (Is Tricycle still being published?), at which point what is reported about the controversy can be included. I personally will be adding any such material the moment I find it, not because I disapprove of Roach in any way, but because NPOV demands it. Until such time, I think the article meets NPOV in that there are not yet any reliable sources which report the controversy. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing an editorial-like information is not self publishing, nor is lamrim in the business of self publishing anything. From a wiki article on self publishing:

Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers. ..... ...... The key distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher. Instead the creator or creators fulfill this role, taking editorial control of the content, arranging for printing, marketing the material, and often distributing it, either directly to consumers or to retailers. Less often, the author prints the material, usually using a xerographic process or a computer printer. ..... There are a number of reasons that writers choose to self-publish, although one of the most common is that their work is not of interest to a commercial publisher. Publishers must be confident of sales of several thousand copies to take on a book. An otherwise worthy book may not have this potential for any number of reasons:

   * author wishes to retain complete editorial control over content (see below)
   * author is unknown and does not have substantial resume
   * popular topic but of interest only in a small geographic area
   * addresses an obscure topic in which few people are interested
   * content is controversial enough that publishers do not wish to be associated with it
   * author wishes to obtain a larger percentage return from retail sales

Occasionally an author may choose to self-publish for reasons of control, because they want access to their customer list, or because they love the business of publishing. When working with a publisher, an author gives up a degree of editorial controll

So clearly this is about whole editions and books published so that the autor of them would have a media in which to expess oneself, probably because they couldnt be published on another way, and clearly thats not the use of lamrim, sometimes being used as infrastructure for a visit by HH Dalai Lama.

This is what policy actually says:

Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject.

..... How precisely isnt lamrim.com such a third party source? if trycicle publised it on their magazine/website, wouldnt that be self-published if any of the owners of the site wrote there? Like they apparently do in say "editors view". Imagine if this contraversy was published but there, or as a similar open letter explaining why content by Michael Roach will no longer be published and not as an article. How is this different from the site that publishes 99.99% multimedia recordings of famous buddhist teachers, but also contains a letter? Also note that the only interesting thing about this site is not some second hand account of the contraversy but the very fact that a content (not created by that administrator - but by Michael Roach) was taken down, because of the contraversy. So thats certainly not as if there was Theres no mention in [WP:BLP] that editorials should not be used, or would this seem remotely implied.

All you are saying is that there must be a reliable secondary source for something to be even mentioned. And this is against the policy, this is what it actually says on primary sources:

Public figures ......... Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details ........

Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above).

So note that in both cases primary sources can indeed be used - in a case of a public figure (which a guru inherently must be due to the sensitivity of his role) 'taken with great care' and in a case of a non-public figure -'generally not be used..' - again leaving place for exceptions.

So, could you give an example of allowable primary sources that mention this contraversy? And hasnt it allready been established that if that primary source is a self publication of the subject himself, like the information Kt66 dug from archive.org of sites by Michael Roach, that this is indeed allowable matherial regardless? How did those edits look and whats the problem with them? As far as patience goes, I have no problem with this, only find your criteria for inclusion extreme and changing, and with a bias against internet sources of any kind so wonder if differet sources wont be eliminated on a similar way. Quite possibly Im simply not understanding your position to enough detail and its possibly strict but iron-clad and assured eventual inclusion. But the question is rather if wiki policy allows some inclusion, not if some particular interpretation does, regardless of 'patience' so I hope for more opinions on it too..

--83.131.147.34 20:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

neutralized the passage on study

According to a Geshe who was studying in GMR class at Sera, GMR studied all together 5 years - whereas for the lowest Geshe degree 15 years of extensive study are minimum. The degree was passed to him without that he has done any exam. It was a honorary geshe degree he received because he has sponsored Sera so extensively. So using phrases of "extensive study" are not neutral that's why I removed it. Also what a Geshe is, is written in the related article, so I removed the phrase (akin to a Doctorate of Divinity). The article should be grounded not pushed up. kt66

included http://www.diamond-cutter.org Diamnond-Cutter.org link at Michael Roach per discussion we still had and User:HanumanDas' requirements of inlcusion

When we had the discussion about including the critical link mainly User:HanumanDas and user:Ekajati were against it. All other editors were for including or at least not against it. Because User:HanumanDas argued:

I am happy to include a critical link - as long as the publishers of the site have the balls to put their names on it. I can create a site that trashes you in a few moments work (if I knew your identity) - would you want that information then linked to by WP? —Hanuman Das 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (see archive2)

I now included the link and the responsible person, because the website owner gives his name on the website, see: http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/about.html Regards, --Kt66 12:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe that H.D. meant to say "authors" rather than "publishers". That is, the content is still anonymously authored. These people need to have the guts to put their name on their complaints if they want to be linked to from Wikipedia. The same legal issues apply. The site is still just a bunch of anons talking shit about somebody. Gossip does not deserve to be linked to from WP. There is no way to determine the veracity or reliability of anonymous sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

to make it short, there is one person in charge for the site. What user:HanumanDas's main point was will be a speculation in a way and he stopped his WP activity. The site lists also an official letter by the office of HH the Dalai Lama so you can not say this letter has an anonymous authorship and that the office of the Dalai Lama offers "nons talking shit about somebody" and "Gossip" when stating the obvious things: "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice." Is this gossip? From my POV the reasoning you offer now is quite biased and not well reasoned, so I can not accept your removal and will reinclude it. If you disagree either give better reasons or lets ask minimum two or three unbiased Admins. Regards. --Kt66 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Dalai Lama letter. That brings up a couple of other issues:

1. If the Dalai Lama wished to publicize this letter, he would have it posted at the Office of Tibet website. So link to it there.
2. As you may or may not know, the author of a letter holds the copyright to that letter. I see no evidence that the Dalai Lama gave permission to reprint His less. In fact, the basic fact of who holds the copyright is not even mentioned. Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to sites which violate the copyrights of other.
3. The same goes for letters by Michael Roach republished on the site. Those letters were sent to specific individuals. I see no indication of Michael Roach having given permission to republish the letters. Even if they were or are published on his own web sites, those sites are copyrighted and other sites may not simply republish his letters.

Now there are two reasons not to link to the site: anonymous potentially libelous content AND possible copyright violation issues. The latter is serious, and I will be looking into having the site blacklisted for copyright violations so that it CANNOT be linked to... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

my feeling is you are not neutral and just misuse rules for avoiding any critical link regarding Michael Roach. I asked two person for their opinion we'll see what their view is. Regards, --Kt66 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at the Admins noticeboard and asked them for advice

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Roach_.28Buddhist.29

--Kt66 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamond-cutter.org does contain copyright violations

An anon on the BLP noticeboard denied this, so I checked myself. This is what I found (copied from my response on the noticeboard):

Yes, there are copyvio letters written by Michael Roach and other documents belonging to Roach and/or Diamond Mountain there. They are in PDF format and linked from http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/documents.html. The copyvios include the links titled

• Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)
• Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)
• Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)
• Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)
• Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)
• Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

These are all copyright violations. The site has no right to publish any of them. A Ramachandran 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems no way to include this link. So we have to wait if something is published elsewhere... (maybe in Tricycle: The Buddhist Review) --Kt66 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that using work from another source without permission does not in itself constitute a copyright violation.

The use of these materials on this diamond-cutter.org is NOT a copyright violation as it constitutes "Fair Use" as specified by the BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS:

US COPYRIGHT LAW defines fair use in this way, in section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Reference from - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

You are wrong. Fair use does not allow the use of a work as a whole, but only covers the use of quotations in the context of another work. The quotations must generally be less than half the content of the new work making fair use of the quotations. The key word in fair use is use. You are not a lawyer, and you don't know what you're talking about. The site violates copyright and cannot be linked to. If you continue to insert the link, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A Ramachandran 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A) How do you know I am not a lawyer?

B) Actually YOU are wrong....

The US Gov't Copyright Website states: Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. (From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html)

NOTE: The use of this quote itself is "Fair Use", so please don't comment it out like you did on my previous post

Maybe Ramachandran it is you who are no a lawyer. I believe that the site may be validly linked to under wikipedia rules.

QUESTION: who has the final say about such matters at Wikipedia? If you continue to remove this link then maybe we'll have to try to have you locked from editing wikipedia.

I would like to formally request that you undertake Mediation on this matter with a 3rd Party, with a view to arbitration if this fails.

Go ahead, take it to mediation. I'm quite confident of the facts and Wikipedia's policy. You'll have to create an account though.... A Ramachandran 01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with mediation as well. So we can find a proper dealing with it. Thank you both. --Kt66 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation and its results

Here is the link to the mediation and the final result: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach --Kt66 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for an amicable settlement on the critical link

Its obvious that Ramachandran and I (and others) disagree on this issue and that we both feel we are correct and both feel we have valid reasons for feeling as such. It would be nice if we can recognise that our perceptions differ on this issue, and that we may both have valid points, or we may both be wrong. This is the nature of beings... to perceive things differently.

So an amicable settlement, which I would like to propose, would be a compromise. Perhaps we can include the link, with a strongly worded disclaimer that the link is to a site that may contain controversial materials. We could work on the wording of this together.

Otherwise I (or others) will just keep adding the link daily and Ramachandran will keep removing it, untill we all get banned from WikiPedia for being such a bunch of wallies (yeh thick baat nahin hoga, Ramachandran Bhai... Maaf kijiye mera yaar, lekin mujhe Tamil atta nahin hain).

In any case, its a waste of everyones valuable time, so if we can both be big about this, agree to dissagree, and come to a compromise then we'll all have grown a little and we'll all be better off (Shayad is mamla se hum dono acchi dosti ban jayegi).

Best wishes to all

Diamondwatcher 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to engage in mediation. But I will withdraw from mediation unless the link is left out during mediation. If the link violates WP:BLP it must be left out. Similarly if the link violates copyright it must be left out. Since either case could make Wikipedia vulnerable to legal action, it is not fair to Wikipedia to keep the link in the article until it is reviewed and approved by someone with authority to do so. A Ramachandran 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Ramachandra Bhai, you will admit that you are doing this for the sake of Wikipedia, rather than your personal devotion to Geshe Michael Roach (I have read your posts of Chatrooms regarding Geshe Michael Roach and it's quite obvious that your his student in some way. So if your doing it for the sake of Wikipedia, and there is a consensus that there is no problem linking to this site, then you'll accept that.. No?) Diamondwatcher 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no connection whatsoever with Geshe Roach. However, I'm pretty certain that policy will not allow linking to the site, for multiple reasons. You must be mistaking me for someone else. Not only have I not posted in chatrooms related to the topic, I don't post in chatrooms at all, of any sort. A Ramachandran 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to compromise on this point by linking to one or two specific articles on that site that all parties can agree are reasonably verifiable and not copyright violations, rather than linking to the website's main page?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion to such a compromise. --Kt66 12:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. And I'd like to remind editors that there is a formal mediation going on and that that is the place to discuss this. See the template at the top of the page. If you have an interest in the matter, you should add your name to the mediation and let the mediator know that you are joining the mediation. A Ramachandran 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati/Ramachandra/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry Case

The latest information on the sockpuppetry of the non-collaborative "trio" above, really one user, who've been active on this article, and taking similiar inflexible positions regarding critical material on similar articles:

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

Above advisory posted by --Dseer 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this really the case or mere a joke? Why does no WP:Administrator publish this Sockpuppetry Case? From where did you receive this information and is this accuse of sockpuppetry based on facts and reliable? Is there an Admin who can confirm this Sockpuppetry Case?

If all three persons - who worked so hard to ban the critical link - are the same person than we put in the link right now, because all three of them would have just misused the Wp rules for banning the critical link. Besides them nobody else agreed to ban the critical link. --Kt66 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ekajati.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Astonished I can only say in German: Das ist der Hammer! Ok, no need to block the link any more. --Kt66 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati/Hanuman Das/A Ramachandran and probably other "socks" were active all over Wikipedia, agreeing with each "other", and trying to block critical links against many controversial spiritual teachers using threats and intimidation, like you've seen here. Since the issue is simply adding the link to experts on the critical POV relative to a subject to confirm that there is a controversy, not to endorse the controversial material or cite it in the article, Ekajati's position was too extreme and biased against NPOV. In the Andrew Cohen article, Ekajati threatened other other editors with banning if they restored a critical link he deleted, and also reported them to the BLP noticeboard. The difference there was that some of us editors recognized his approach from several articles and were not intimidated by his psuedo-legalisms, non-collaboration and threats, pointed out both in discussion and at the BLP noticeboard in wikipedian logic why he was wrong, biased, and was threatening other editors, and restored the link over his objections, and so called his bluff. Having taken mediation training, I assure you that you can't mediate with someone like that with a devious agenda, sometimes you have to be bold and trust yourself when a review of contributions shows a non-collaborative agenda, and contest them wherever they take their argument. While you have to be cautious, the fact is such critical links are quite normal, I can think of a dozen regarding different figures, and none of them have been shut down by legal action, despite the claims of our sockpuppets, and I can prove if it comes to that. Besides the logic I used in the mediation case, which among other things points out that the leader has refused to try and refute the charges on that site despite offers to do so, there is the simple fact that history with NRMs shows that usually these ex-followers have more evidence than they disclose, and if they were forced to testify under oath to defend against a lawsuit, the NRM might well come out much worse. Since Ekajati has been active in trying to circumvent bans and creating sockpuppets to support his agenda, although all known sockpuppets have been blocked, he may try to sneak back, so all those interested in the Wikipedian logic by which Ekajati's assertions were rebutted in the Cohen article should read here: [[1]], and here: [[2]]. And here is the mediator's favorable comments on the same logical position at the Ken Wilber article: [[3]]. Now that the biased deletionist and sockpuppet master is gone, here's to an NPOV article! --Dseer 05:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort and contributions! --Kt66 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings needed

On the original article page there is not even a mention that the article is controversial. There should be one.

The letter from HH The Dalai Lama advising Geshe Michael Roach to stay away from Dharamsala is a fact, not an invention and should be posted here.

Fact: Michael Roach announces himself as a geshe monk. Fact: He says Christie is his girfriend/consort. Fact: He wears watches/jewels and long hair. Fact: Practicing Highest Yoga Tantra ultimately leads to the necessity to practice with a consort. Fact: Geshe Michael is a practitioner of Vajrayogini Vajrayana, nad is follwing in the tradition of that path when he takes a consort after his retreat. Fact: There is no contradition between what is expected of him, and what he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

These statements by an admitted Roach advocate "protesting" criticism (Fact: Practicing Highest Yoga Tantra ultimately leads to the necessity to practice with a consort; Fact: Geshe Michael is a practitioner of Vajrayogini Vajrayana, nad is follwing in the tradition of that path when he takes a consort after his retreat; Fact: There is no contradition between what is expected of him, and what he does) are obviously not facts, they are opinions and editorializing, and are disputed by recognized authorities. Editors having such a Conflict of Interest pattern should cease editing the article to avoid being found in violation of Wikipedia policies, and will find such POV edits promptly reverted. --Dseer 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All these above contradict the vinaya rules for monks (fact) so he's at fault. This is not speculation so it should be stated on the page.

All over the world, buddhists are very concerned by the behavior of this person. This should be on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.227.73 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Only what is mentioned in a Wikipedia:Reliable Source and what is a Wikipedia:Secondary source can be added. Maybe we have to wait until Tricycle will publish this case. --Kt66 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this link [4] of any help? It is of interest to note that both Diamond Mountain as well as diamond-cutter.org provide links to Lam Rim Radio [5] http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/faq.html#2. -- Knverma 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think not. A personal statement is not the basis for verifying a controversy... --Kt66 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already agreed with that part, that the accusations cannot be claimed to be true. But facts like "his teachings have been removed from lamrim.com" could be claimed to be true. But then perhaps it is not so significant, and it might be better to wait before even mentioning all this in the article. -- Knverma 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

this is the point: the removal of his teachings from a website is not that relevant... --Kt66 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevant thing is that this is not a teacher without serious controversy by many groups including HH The Dalai Lama office, and this should be stated very clear in the wikipedia page. The letters should be published in wikipedia since they're open. The 'accussations' are not gossip but based on facts, please read again the 4 facts, they're not subjective but objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.227.73 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Lama Yeshe's commentary as well as Berzinarchives both cite the role of consorts and buddhahood within the traditions containing highest practices. Each source's authority is very great, and they are only 2 of the most readily accessible selections of a large group of sources. They all write about the necessity of consorts. From this it is clear that much of the 'controversy' stems from people who do not have very much knowledge. 72.208.102.177 (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) -qhats

Micheal Roach took Gelugpa vows and has broken them left, right, and center. The most important rule of vinaya for a monk is to maintain in the strictest sense the very vows given you by your lama, not some other Tibetan school's vows. Micheal Roach TOOK VOWS against female companionship and he has broken them shamelessly. There is no doubt about this. The only way high tantric lamas are permitted to take a consort is to give back their monks ordination. HHDL has made that abundantly clear on many occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.7.130 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source

1. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Questionable_sources

2. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources

3. -Critical Links- contains an external link.

The critical link should be removed immediately. I have tagged it with BLPsources and removed the caption. I do not have the experience to understand what happens after mediation (this has gone to mediation once already; I read the background of this article extensively and saw the debate and mediation). That is why I did not remove it, outright. Did mediation fail in its function? I don't know enough about this.

4. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP

5. This Talk page is itself deeply in violation of #4 (IMO) ('Fact' this and 'Fact' that, bypassing obvious WP:BLP and/or WP:V restriction disallowing those comments here). That was a surprise finding while composing this entry. Fits several pieces of the puzzle together for me wrt 'what good does it do, if the material is removed from the article but advanced in the Talk page?'

Obviously, the Talk page should also meet the standard. Anyone who wants to investigate the subject of the biography can go to the Talk page and find things there that did not make it into the article, proper. That's circumvention. There is policy for this. (That had always puzzled me).

6. These are only my opinions (and edits). I also removed 'American' and 'controversial' from the lead sentence, the other day (was not logged in; sorry).

7. I would definitely support a more experienced editor who removed such content from this Talk page (and all archives). Is this commonly done on Wikipedia? The policy pages demand it is done. Is it done in practice?

8. I know less about GMR than when I first heard of him last week, while googling 'criticism FPMT' (17th entry was 'critical link'). I came to Wikipedia for background on GMR.

Tetonca 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the critical link should be removed. There has been extensive discussion on this previously. Also, Micheal Roach did not "Found" Andin International. He was merely employed there. He apparently became an important part of the company, but he did not found it, no matter what you may read in his self published biographies. -- Simmonstony (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there has been extensive discussion on this previously. Nevertheless, WP:BLP is abundantly clear on this (I cited the relevant texts above). Whether or not MR founded or was employed at Andin International is entirely unknown to me. If you assert it, what is your source? I don't know what the source was for the original material. If it's verifiable, and can be sourced, it should stand. I have no idea if it is true, and there do not seem to be sources to discover this, available on the Internet. Critical sections on other WP:BLP that I've seen tend to cite referenced materials with ISBN numbers, and they type the citation into the article, as those books are infrequently published online where one could just link to the citation.

Actually I do not know the importance of your edit -- I do not know what Andin Int'l is, except I tried visiting their web site in connection with what little research I could do on this biography online. It is an interesting story, and helps me to understand the sociology of Buddhism in the U.S. Your edit wrt Andin (to my limited knowledge) doesn't seem especially troublesome, especially if it is 'true'. I'd like to see your source, though.

A well-known person (apparently MR is that) is entitled to self-publish a biography, and I believe (I have not checked this thoroughly) it counts as a reliable source (verifiable) here.

Tetonca (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Previously, this article has been the victim of abuse though sock puppetry, resulting in at least 3 user accounts being blocked. Those user accounts seem to have been created for the sole purpose of removing the critical link from this article, and keeping the article from any criticism of the subject.

Oddly, user Tetonca has turned up on this page, with little history and seems to have taken up the exact same agenda, using the exact same reasoning as the previous sock puppets.

Whilst I am not accusing Tetonca of any wrong doing, and will assume good faith, I feel that the page should be watched closely.

What did flag my attention is Tetonca's wish to also clear the talk pages of any materials that reflect the critical link.

The critical link has been discussed at length and unless there is consensus between several editors then it should remain.

-- Simmonstony (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You will note my User:Tetonca page links to my WWW site, which gives my real name (and archive.org contains records of that page dating back many years). No puppets here.

----

The Michael Roach article's talk page is, in my opinion, in violation of WP:BLP; in my opinion, this is an algorithmic matter that follows directly from policy (WP:BLP, etc.)

I do not understand the role of consensus wrt policy violation. Seems to me that being 'bold' is called for when the policy states things should be removed immediately. The next step is to ask for less-vested interests to look at the article. That seems like the right thing to do here, to me.

I would absolutely concur there is much editor consensus to keep the critical link, and they did a fair amount of back and forth on how to caption it. No argument there -- but I acted because I believe the editor consensus was nevertheless in violation of policy.

Even through mediation (and this puzzles me).

If nothing else I've added my voice here to say there definitely is not 100% consensus.

If you know how to attract good, balanced attention to the article, I'd be most grateful to have other voices weigh in on this. Especially those that have no interest in the outcome, other than to see WP:BLP upheld.

Criticism is meaningful in a WP:BLP. Many WP:BLP articles contain verifiable criticisms of the subject of the biography. I fully support verifiable criticism in any WP:BLP, including this one. That way, it stands up to legal challenges, and the public benefits in the long run (as does Wikipedia).

It also brings scrutiny from outside the world of M. Roach's approach to Buddhism, to that world (or more importantly, to the public) which, I think, is useful.

In fact, I came here looking for just that. Verifiable criticism of M. Roach. To get beyond the he-said-she-said stuff I don't understand (seen on that forum--yes, I read extensively there, and IMO the public is in no danger of not noticing that site exists, with or without a Wikipedia mention of it).

Thank you for your time.

Tetonca (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:BLP Policy

Existing editor consensus not especially informative wrt verifiability of cited WWW link 'Critical Link' (see article).

Additional information:

The request is for balanced review of inclusion of the 'Critical Link' in the article body. Existing editor consensus is to keep (and even expand) inclusion of this link, the description (caption) for the link, etc. Has gone to mediation at least once.

In a word, the current discussion is about verifiability of the cited link.

Tetonca (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link clearly violates WP:BLP policy and have removed it. 90.128.39.138 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the defamation on this talk page should be cleaned up as well. 90.128.39.138 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Humm. Totally lost me here. What is wrong with the critical link. I think it sheds a great deal of light on the subject. It is also rather even handed and on point. Why was it removed -Vritti (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the link either, so will put it back. Johnfos (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical link and "Controversy" section

I have removed the controversy section because there is no way to verify this information outside of Diamond-Cutter.org, run by Gary Friedman. For information this controversial in nature, I believe that there must be more than one source verifying these claims. Personally, I find the letters from H.H. the Dalai Lama compelling. However, this information has never been published in books or newspapers—therefore, the information cannot be considered 100% reliable. I am not saying there have not been issues raised concerning Roach's ethical conduct. I am saying that we must be able to point to more than one source to prove this, especially considering that the one source we do have is the kind of website any Tom, Dick or Harry could create if they so desired. It is not encyclopedic, and no true encyclopedia would rely on such a website. It would be the equivalent of relying on a blog, regardless of how accurate the said blog claims itself to be. (Mind meal (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The section titled "Critical link and "Controversy" section" has no citations. Wikipedia indicates these entries must conform to certain standards - which it doses not. Please inlude referances and citations immediately.

               ==Controversy==

Michael Roach's behavior has caused considerable controversy within the Tibetan Buddhist (need citation) community because he continues to call himself a Buddhist monk and wear the robes of a monk, despite breaking his monastic vows (need citation) by taking a female partner (need referance), wearing his hair long and wearing jewelry. The Office of the Dalai Lama has spoken out against Michael Roach (need citation), stating in part, "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice."

I'm pleased to see the Controversy section returned to the article. At the same time, Michael Roach has explained his actions as being admissible due to a precedence of the past or the influence of a higher power. I would think a properly cited reference to his view would help balance the section and further illuminate the nature of the controversy. I might do it myself, but don't have the references handy at the moment. Just a thought... -Vritti (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the above note makes no sense. ("admissible due to a precedence of the past or the influence of a higher power?") Articles need to be written in a manner that is keeping with the intetn of Wikipedia. Not in a manner that is based upon personal opinion or psycholgical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the "influence of a higher power" bit, which I also don't understand, doesn't seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia policy (it would at least need to cite where Roach has said this), the "precedence of the past" does make sense. The original tradition of Padmasambhava preserved in the Nyingma school does allow for non-celibate lamas, so living with a partner is not outside the bounds of tradition, especially if, as they assert, they are maintaining a celibate relationship. However, since the Nyingma "white sangha" are permitted to marry and need not take vows of celibacy, what Roach is doing is not necessarily outside the bounds of acceptable practice within Tibetan Buddhism, even if it is outside the bound of Gelug rule. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nyingma School is not relevant to this article. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, because it contextualized the range of acceptable behaviours within Tibetan Buddhism, of which the Gelug school accepts only a subset. Both this article and the NYT article place the controversy as within the "Tibetan Buddhist community", but the diversity of views within that community provides important context to show conflict betweens different schools on the same issue. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Roach did not take Nyingmapa vows. He took Gelugpa vows and has broken them left, right, and center. The most important rule of vinaya for a monk is to maintain in the strictest sense the very vows given you by your lama, not some other Tibetan school's vows. Micheal Roach TOOK VOWS against female companionship, wearing hair more than two finger widths in length, and wearing jewelry; and he has broken them shamelessly. There is no doubt about this. The only way high tantric lamas are permitted to take a consort is to give back their monks ordination. HHDL has made that abundantly clear on many occasions. Michael Roach has grossly broken his committments and this is why his own monastery has withdrawn communications with him. He is an outcast from mainstream Tibetan Buddhism. In my conversations with Tibetans from different traditions INCLUDING Nyingmapas, there is near universal agreement on this in the Tibetan diaspora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.7.130 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a lama and a monk. There's no such thing as "Gelukba" vs. "Nyingma" ordination. It's Buddhist monk's vows. I'm enormously skeptical of GMR, but why is it that religions always focus on sex? When was the last time a Buddhist monk gave back his vows so he could eat after midday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

new york times article about Michael Roach mentions controversy

Today I happened upon the following article in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/15buddhists.html?em&ex=1211083200&en=729a029c0a34c0e5&ei=5087

and after reading it, decided to see what Wikipedia might offer about Mr. Roach's life and work. To my amazement, the article did not include the slightest reference to controversy.

I then decided to read the Talk page. It became apparent that a substantial amount of argumentation has been made, on the issue of whether Wikipedia policy permits (or requires, or disallows, etc.) mention of the controversy.

If the answer, after today's Times article was published, is "does not permit", why in blazes not? The New York Times has been considered the, or one of the, "paper(s) of record" in the U.S. since long before any Wikipedia editor was born. Surely, if it mentions a controversy, Wikipedia can mention the controversy. Or so I would think -- I, who am not a lawyer, not a Wikipedian to any substantial degree, have never been a Buddhist and never heard of Mr. Roach nor any of the parties to the discussions on these pages, until today.

Frankly, if the existence of the controversy about Michael Roach does not make it (back) into this article, I believe it will stand as yet another example of why so many people think Wikipedia is a laughingstock. And I would regret that. Publius3 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who I think you might accuse of being partisan, I think the NY Times article was great, and I encourage you to quote it as a reference. However, if you do so, please be sure that what you say is supported by the contents of the article. Nobody would dispute the assertion that Geshe Michael is controversial, and I think the article does mention that controversy, so it's appropriate to use that here, as long as you don't venture off into left field with new information you think pertinent that is not sourced from the article. Abhayakara —Preceding comment was added at 07:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good article which presents facts not mentioned in the controversy section, namely that both Roach and his partner assert that they have and are keeping their vows of celibacy within this relationship. I've modified the controversy section to reflect this, and also note that the NYT article nowhere asserts that Roach has broken any vows, only that there is concern that he appears to have if the relationship is not indeed celibate. As such the previous stronger wording of the Wikipedia article was not actually supported by the reference. This also has been corrected. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What the controversy in the Controversy section is actually about

Assuming good faith with other editors here, I find that the frequent editing or removal of the controversy section must be based on a lack of understanding as to what the controversy is about. Allow me to clarify. Michael Roach has become a bhikku (Buddhist Monk) by taking ordination and making vows to live and behave within the rules of the Vinaya. He has broken these rules by keeping his hair long, wearing jewlry and and associating intimately with a member of the opposite sex. To verify this, look at a picture on the main page of the article and then read the Vinaya text-[6].

The nature of the controversy is the breaking of Vinaya vows and while doing so, continuing to wear the robes of a monk. In a WP:NPOV article, the facts are presented so that readers can make up their own mind what this may mean if anything. The office of the Dalai Lama has criticised this behavior, as have others, while most people could care less. The controversy is not simply about celibacy or the lack of it, it is about the breaking of vows and rules of the Vinaya and continuing to wear the robes of a monk. This is seen as very bad form within the Sangha, hence the controversy. -Vritti (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The issue should be better described. It should note the differences in robes, and that Nyingma of the white sangha are entitled to wear robes and give empowerments, even though they are married and non-celibate. It should not leave the impression that Roach's qualifications to teach are in any way diminished. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the matter of the controversy was much better described prior to your edits today. The article is about Geshe Michael Roach, not Tibetan Buddhism in general. Geshe Roach is a Gelugpa Bhikku/Monk. The white sangha of the Nyingma are lay people and not ordained as Monks but initiated into practice. Lamas may be householders or may be also ordained as Monks, but the term is a title for a respected Buddhist teacher and is not synonymous with Monk. These are confusions you have introduced to the article. You have removed mention of the three points which were cited and at heart of the controversy. Geshe Roach's long hair, wearing jewelry and taking a female partner in violation of his Vinaya vows. You state, "It should not leave the impression that Roach's qualifications to teach are in any way diminished." The entire body of the article is dedicated to Geshe Roach's life and history as a Buddhist teacher. It is not our position as editors to give any positive or negative impression, but to present qualified information in line with WP:NPOV. In the this way the reader can make up their own mind based on the quality of the information. There is a controversy with Geshe Roach because he has broken his vows, yet continues to wear the robes of a monk. The controversy is that simple. Let readers make up their own mind as to whether or not Geshe Roach is a qualified Buddhist teacher or not. If Geshe Roach removes his Bhikku robes their is no controversy or controversy section. -Vritti (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roach is probably the single most controversial figure in Tibetan Buddhism today, and his Wikipedia article should reflect that at least in some small way. Tibetans themselves talk frequently about the error of his conduct and condemn his actions since he began his three year retreats. He most certainly is breaking his vows. The Nyingma school has absolutely nothing to do with this controversy. Michael Roach was ordained in the Gelugpa school and therefore took vows against the taking of a female partner (he is not even supposed to touch a female if avoidable), against the wearing of any adornment or jewelry, and against letting his hair grow long (more than two finger widths in length). He must hold these vows (and many others) in order to wear the robes of a Gelugpa monk. This is more than just a controversy, this is an outrage to Tibetans in the East and West. That is why so many Tibetans and Gelugpa monks and laypeople have drawn away from Michael Roach regardless of how charismatic a teacher he is. He is simply degrading his vows. There is no doubt about that. There are many people in this forum trying to obfuscate the issue. The man has broken his vows.

Drukpa Kunleg once said the very same thing about the Karmapa. It caused quite a scene, but we all had a good laugh afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nyingma school material

As the first line of this article states, Michael roach is a teacher of Tibetan Buddhism of the Gelugpa school. He has had nothing to do with the Nyingma school and so discussion of the Nyingma tradition is not relevant to the article. Johnfos (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, because it contextualizes the range of acceptable behaviours within Tibetan Buddhism, of which the Gelug school accepts only a subset. Both this article and the NYT article place the controversy as within the "Tibetan Buddhist community", but the diversity of views within that community provides important context to show conflict betweens different schools on the same issue. Alternatively, the article could be modified to say that his behavior has caused controversy within the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, unless you have sources for criticism from other schools? Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Johnfos. Not only is the matter not relevant, it is off the point of the controversy completely. The Nyingma ordination you are referring to is for lay people, not monks like Geshe Roach. You are mixing apples and oranges and confusing people. The Vinaya reflects the required discipline and vows taken by monks, to be monks. If you feel the need to wear long hair, jewelry and have a female partner, you embroil your Sangha in controversy. Take off the robes and there is no controversy. -Vritti (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting out diamond-cutter.org

The controversy section is now a long rambling section which takes up almost half of the length of the article. It seems to me that one particular editor has got carried away with demonstrating his/her erudition rather than sticking to the topic at hand (see previous section on Nyingma school). Is this really what Michael Roach supporters want? I would have thought something shorter and less prominent would have been better.

In any case there is no way that the diamond-cutter.org site can be excluded altogether. This site has been mentioned on this page for a long time, and there is no reason to start excluding it now. Much of what is said in the NYT article supports what is said in diamond-cutter.org, which enhances the site's credibility as a reliable source. Johnfos (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm adding a POV tag to this article because essential diamond-cutter.org material has been excluded, and so the article is not neutral. In particular, the following paragraph has been removed: Johnfos (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roach's behavior has caused controversy within the Gelugpa community because he continues to call himself a Buddhist monk and wear the robes of a monk, living with a female partner, wearing his hair long, and wearing jewelry. The Office of the Dalai Lama has spoken out against Michael Roach, stating in part, "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice."

Please do not post material from diamond-cutter.org on the talk page either. The site clearly does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources or the requirement for sources in biographies of living persons, particularly the clause here, which reads, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." Since Gary Friedman is the owner, editor and publisher of diamond-cutter.org, a partisan site intended to diminish the reputation of the subject, it simply cannot be used or linked to, the way I read WP:BLP. The NYT article is a much better and more reliable source. They are cautious, as Wikipedia should also be, not to make statements that Roach has broken his vows, as that is a matter of belief, opinion and interpretation and rests primarily on the contested assumption of non-celibacy. Such statements are potentially libelous and should never have been permitted to be in the Wikipedia article unless quoting someone who said so. In any case, the proper place to discuss whether or not the sources meet WP:BLP is on the related noticeboard as indicated at the top of this talk page. Please take you concerns to that venue. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may want to be aware that the issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. Shu Li Yen (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Madagascar periwinkle asserts that "statements that Roach has broken his vows, as that is a matter of belief, opinion and interpretation and rests primarily on the contested assumption of non-celibacy." This statement is not correct in any way. The Vinaya gives the rules which govern the behavior of monks. Anyone who is familiar with the Vinaya and its purpose can look at pictures of the subject and see evidence that the vows are not being observed. This is the same observation made by the Office of the Dalai Lama. There was no mention of "celibacy" or "non-celibacy" in the article until they were introduced by Madagascar periwinkle. Secondly, the consideration of legal matters such as libel are more than a bit obscure since the truth is a complete defense against libel. No one has suggested that Michael Roach has breached the law of the land, but has failed to observe the rules of Vinaya as photographic evidence suggests. This observation is shared by Thekchen Choeling of the Office of the Dalai Lama whose letter, published with the author's permission can be found http://www.diamond-cutter.org/dalai-lama-office/dalai-lama-office-denounce.html here. -Vritti (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about any of that. Whether a site meets the criteria for reliability is the only issue that I am interested in. Please bring the discussion to the place where it will get the attention of editors who have experience making this determination, WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. So far, the opinion of the BLP montitoring editor who has reviewed the site is that it is not suitable, which means it should not even be linked from the talk page. Shu Li Yen (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is probably topical to note that the individual you identify as "BLP monitoring editor" [FaithF] is a new editor to Wikipedia since April 30th of this year. Since this article has been repeatedly attacked with the same tactics by [Ekajati] and socks, I'm beginning to have some difficulty with WP:AGF. -Vritti (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in the topic except to make sure it conforms to Wikipedia standards. Length of service has no bearing on being able to correctly read policy. The source is not reliable. If it quotes NYT, then get the citation from the NYT. --Faith (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that about User:FaithF. But please stick to the subject. Regardless of the history or who first pointed it out, this is a simple matter of applying existing guidelines. The initial user who brought it up may well have been right, even if they were wrong about other things. This is why I have requested, twice now, that the conversation be carried on in the correct venue. This is not a content dispute. It is a question about whether a source is reliable. I am beginning to lose WP:AGF myself due to the extreme resistance there appear to be to discussing it on WP:BLPN. Are you so attached to using the source that you are afraid to discuss it in that venue? Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The diamond-cutter website has been reason for ongoing edit wars since 2005. Perhaps it would be a good thing to drop it, and the New York Times can now be used as source. The website also consists of mostly anonymously written material, that could be an issue with the high verifiability standards for biographies of living persons. Species8473 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what is gained by using and linking to such a questionable site. Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Diamond-cutter.org has stood the test of time, and now the NYT article confirms the basic information contained in the site. The NYT article is an essential source, however, diamond-cutter.org provides supporting details, which are useful when writing an article such as this.

All materials on diamond-cutter.org are edited and approved by Gary Friedman, who has been an active student in Tibetan Buddhism since 1990 and has undertaken extensive retreat and study.[7] Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. Short version is, none of these arguments can override the fact that the site is self-published and according to WP:BLP cannot be used in a biography of a living person. There are no exceptions to this rule, and thus your arguments cannot overide the rule. Shu Li Yen (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm

External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL), and WP is not a collection of links (see WP:NOTLINK), yet this list of additional links has been repeatedly inserted at the end of the article: Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is no clear violation on WP:EL. But WP:NOTLINK states an encyclopedic context is required. While there is nothing in the article about Tibetan language classes. The Spiritual Partners serie has a horrible video and audio quality. Species8473 (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Video links

• Geshe Michael Roach - Tibetan Language Classes 1-3
• Geshe Michael Roach - Tibetan Language Classes 4-6
• Spiritual Partners 7 Geshe Michael Roach Lama Christie McNally Day 1 Part 1of2, Day 1 Part 2of2, Day 2 part 1/2, Day 2 part 2/2

Sock-puppet advisory update

This article has long been under siege by socks of the banned user User:Ekajati. See Advisory above. Recently, two more socks of Ekajati have been banned from Wikipedia. User:Madagascar periwinkle and User:Shu Li Yen. Please speak up if you have something to say about this article. Historically, socks of User:Ekajati reincarnate with astonishing rapidity, so take advantage of the new editing environment while you have a chance to WP:AGF with other editors here. -Vritti (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious allegation if not factual. Shu Li Yen has not been banned [8] --Faith (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Shu Li Yen is not an admin, so the block log can be found here -Vritti (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to put it another way. This article has a contentious history. Recently an acting member of WP:ARBCOM has seen fit to block two accounts and an anon (IP address) of [User:Ekajati] a banned editor. He has also protected the article so it cannot be edited. What I am suggesting is that any possible changes to the article might be discussed here in this new environment. Frankly, I am hopeful that the page protection goes on indefinitely. However, if some consensus is reached here among editors that a member of WP:ARBCOM might be willing to agree with, such an edit could well be allowed into the article. I think this is a positive development in a currently contentious environment. -Vritti (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed some gossipy text that was added recently by Tony Simmons. This text references a New York Post article in which many quotes from various students are taken out of context and spun so as to present a salacious view of the story. I also removed the text quoting Dr. Thurman and Surya Das, because the quotation didn't support the point being made. I also removed the claim about the Dalai Lama's office, since the Dalai Lama's office has never made any such formal pronouncement, and since the Dalai Lama himself has contradicted the claim attributed to his office. I provided a citation showing this contradiction. These updates are in keeping with the policy stated on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability.

I realize that this will probably provoke some controversy, and I apologize in advance for that, but the text I deleted is gossipy and in some cases defamatory, and should never have been added to the article. Geshe Michael is a controversial figure, and it's not inappropriate to mention that controversy, but it is inappropriate to try to expand on the controversy in the wikipedia article.Abhayakara (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The template above says: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them..." This you did not do. And you promptly have undone my reversion of you. Please don't try to push your changes through by edit-warring.

The NY Post is a reliable source and so BLP concerns don't apply. I've read the articles carefully and support the addition of the material which Simmons has added over recent weeks.

I am restoring the article again. Make additions if you wish, and improve the wording, but don't remove material which is properly sourced. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. See the Verifiability link in the Biographies of living persons article, particularly:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.

The New York Post is a well known gossip rag, not a trusted journal. See the criticism section in the article I've referenced. In particular, the article you claim is a "reliable source" is in fact a page six gossip column, which is noted in the criticism section of the New York Post article.

The bit in the template about this being a controversial topic is intended to discourage the addition of gossip, not to prevent the removal of gossip. The entire section supposedly substantiated by the New York Post article was added by Tony Simmons on July 11, without any mention on this page. Your failure to criticize Tony Simmons for adding this material, and your nearly instant response when I removed it, suggests that your motivation here is not neutral. If you were neutral, I would have expected you to remove Tony Simmon's addition to this article for the exact same reason that you are now insisting that I leave it.

Unless you can come up with some alternate explanation for your actions, please stop undoing the changes I have made. Abhayakara (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the New York Post is a reliable source - it's a major daily newspaper in New York City.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sylvain1972, with all due respect, your assertion is simply wrong. You appear to be knowledgable about Tibetan Buddhism, so I'm surprised to see you advocating the inclusion of gossip in a web page. Please consider the following Wikipedia policy:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid <-- a tabloid is a format for a printed publication, dummy.: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Note particularly the final sentence. The burden of proof here lies with the person adding the gossip. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The New York Post, on the other hand, is a noted tabloid<-- tabloid is simply a format for a printed publication, dummy. Just like folio, quarto, octavo, etc. The article being used to "substantiate" the claims added here to this wikipedia page is from a gossip column in this well-known tabloid. The standard that the Wikipedia docs refer to for biographies of living persons is that of an academic journal, not a gossip column in a tabloid newspaper. The wikipedia policy specifically mentions tabloid newspapers and gossip as not being appropriate.

Similarly, the New York Times article is quite balanced, yet the paragraph it's used to substantiate is not at all balanced. So this text doesn't seem to meet the wikipedia standard for neutrality. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this issue on the BLP noticeboard. For the information of non-buddhists who may come here to check up on what's going on, I will summarize my view of the controversy, which I do not claim is impartial, but in which I will nevertheless do my best to present a neutral viewpoint. Once this issue is resolved, I would appreciate it if this explanatory text could be deleted, since I don't think it's appropriate to present it here--it's largely unsourced. I tried to present what I could from this summary in the edits I made to the article.

If you read the text that I've been trying to remove, it will probably seem weirdly gossipy, in the sense of not being very important. The reason it's in contention is that various Buddhist lineages tend to have different views about partner practice by Buddhist monks. The Gelukpa lineage in particular generally forbids such practice for monks, although there are exceptions, such as the one mentioned by Dr. Thurman in the New York Times article given here as a source, and also mentioned by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his book How to Practice on page 193.

The reason this is controversial is that although it's allowed in special cases for Gelukpa monks to engage in partner practice, they are supposed to keep a low profile, so that monks who are not qualified to do the practice don't get the wrong idea. Gelukpa monks have a vow of celibacy; properly done, partner practice does not break this vow, but improperly done, it does. Only the practitioner knows whether or not the practice is being done properly. So an onlooker might reasonably conclude that the practitioner is merely pursuing a worldly activity. Because Geshe Michael was not given the opportunity to engage in this practice discreetly, he had to make a statement about it, so as to explain why he didn't renounce his vows. This was an unavoidable situation, but it created a lot of difficulty, because the Gelukpa lineage in particular has no tradition for dealing with such revelations.

Since this situation is out in the open, it would be inappropriate for the Wikipedia article not to mention it. However, the article as written today goes to great lengths to make it look scandalous. Perhaps it appears scandalous to the people who wrote the article; I do not mean to imply that they have any ill intent in presenting it this way. However, the presentation is very deliberately one-sided, and goes into great detail about things that are simply gossip. The article as written clearly attempts to draw the reader to the conclusion that Geshe Michael is not in fact qualified to engage in partner practice, and construes various unsubstantiated claims about him from the gossip column as meaning that he is spending all his time dressing up and pursuing Russian models. I've spent quite a bit of time around him, and never seen him do this, so it's a surprising thing to find in his Wikipedia article.

If the authors of the "controversy" section have a point to make, why make it with all this innuendo? They can substantiate their innuendo (if gossip columns and clever use of ambiguous quotes from a human interest stories count as substantiation). But they are using the innuendo to draw the reader to a conclusion that cannot be substantiated. This is why I made the changes I made to the article--I think the new presentation gives a fair voice to the controversy, without being one-sided about it. I tried to find a way to keep the part of the original text that says that some people find his claims unbelievable. But it seems self-evident that some people might find his claims unbelievable, and so it comes across as gossipy. I suspect most readers of this article would simply find his claims incomprehensible, referring, as they do, to a very obscure point of practice.

What particularly concerns me about the article as written is that when read by a layperson, it implies that Gelukpa monks can never engage in partner practice, which isn't true, and therefore that Geshe Michael must have broken his vows, which is also not true. We can't know whether or not he broke his vows, unless we have mystical mind-reading powers, which I certainly don't. No verifiable source with such powers has weighed in on the topic (nor do I know of any such source who could weigh in on this topic!), so making any statements regarding the truth or falsehood of Geshe Michael's claims would seem to necessarily be in violation of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing for controversial statements. Abhayakara (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater input from the BLP noticeboard would be welcome. Although the New York Post is of course a tabloid newspaper, BLP policy does not preclude it from being used a source entirely. The article in question is not a blind item, it is an extended profile that Roach himself obviously cooperated with, granting an interview with the author. The material in question is not salacious gossip, it's prominent and entirely public activity by Roach that no less a reliable source than the New York Times has reported has caused quite a stir in the Tibetan Buddhist world - not just among uninformed observers, but among colleagues and peers. You are correct of course about the context of the consort practice - I've reworked the material and restored your previously added cited passage on the matter. I've also tried to make the handling of the issue more even-handed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me, but I am not knowledgeable in the details of this dispute, rather simply responding from the BLPN thread. However, I removed the link to the NYP blog-post-like article, as it appears to simply be an advertising blurb for the more in-depth "Page Six Magazine" article and doesn't contain anything that article does not. More problematic, the NYT post allows comments like a blog and the content of those comments may be unreliable and violate our BLP policies. We can't know what may be posted there in the future. Since it doesn't actually add anything as a reference, we should err on the side of caution and not link to it. Yworo (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)